• In the case of Epps v Esso Petroleum 1992 I all er 909 it was made clear that parking on an undefined piece of land does not amount to actual occupation.

Facts of the Case

  • “A” owed a house and an adjoining filling station, the properties were divided by a wall originally place 4 feet away from the house. In 1935 A let his properties to J unfortunately in 1955 A died.
  • A’s representatives then sold the house to the wife of J. To allow Mrs. J the opportunity to build a garage, a strip of land 11 feet wide, previously belonging to the filling station, was included in the sale.
  • A new wall was built 15 feet from the house, which separated the filling station and the house.
  • In 1956 a new lease was granted to J for the filling station and was intended to also include the 11-foot strip. In 1959 the personal representative of A decided to sell the filling station, subject to J’s lease, to B the sale mistakenly included the 11-foot strip.
  • B registered the title over the filling station and the strip.
  • In February of 1964, Mrs. J died intestate (not having a will established before their death) and in December of the same year B sold the filling station to the defendants (D), Esso Petroleum, becoming the second registered proprietors.
  • Four years later Mr. J became administrator of his wife’s estate and sold the house to the claimant (C), Mr. and Mrs. Epps. The claimants who thought they owned the strip uncovered that the strip had been registered under the defendant’s title, and C sought to rectify this in court.

Issues in Epps v Esso Petroleum 1992 I all er 909In bullet points

  • Since the defendants acquired the title by mistake, but still held the legal title, the claimants could not put forward the argument that the defendants, disposition was void. Nor could the claimants claim D, played a part in the mistake because it was B (the seller) who made the mistake.
  • The Claimants instead attempted to demonstrate to the court the existence of overriding interests, interests that are not registered at the land registry but remain binding on a party who acquires the land. This is where the party has an equitable interest or contractual right to the property and is in actual possession of it, but failed to register the property, this could override the first registration; if the registered party is not in possession.
  • Additionally, the claimants argued that it would be unjust not to rectify this and that, they along with the prior owners used the strip to park cars which amounted to an overriding interest, as a claim of actual occupation of it
  • Did parking a car on the strip constitutes actual occupation and would it be unjust not to rectify the mistake?

Held by High Court

  • Parking cars on the strip did not amount to actual occupation.

Lord Templeman

  • Even if the claimants regularly parked their cars on the strip Lord Templeman did not believe this to constitute actual occupation.
  • The claimants parking their (small) car on the large strip did not occupy the entire, nor a substantial or even and defined (permanent) part of the whole, and it did not have defined times.
  • It was not unjust not to rectify, as the defendants did not/ought not to have known about the mistake.

Study Law in the UK

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.